Medical Coding Audit Services
A coding audit answers one question: do the codes on your claims match what the documentation supports? It is a chart-level review with a stated sample and stated limits - separate from a billing audit, which reviews the money and the workflow around those codes.
- Free audit
- No contract
- HIPAA-secure
- Cancel anytime
What Are Medical Coding Audits?
A coding audit is an independent review of the CPT, ICD-10-CM, HCPCS and modifier assignments on a sample of charts against the clinical documentation behind them, conducted by credentialed auditors. Three types: retrospective (claims already submitted), pre-bill or prospective (before submission, used during onboarding or after a finding), and focused-target (one risk area, such as modifier 25 or E/M level distribution). The deliverables are a stated sample and selection method, a chart-by-chart findings list giving the correct code and the reason, a root-cause grouping, a remediation plan with named owners, and a re-audit. The fee is fixed by scope and agreed before kickoff - never contingency, because a contingency fee pays the auditor more when the findings point upward.
- Chart-level coding accuracy only - the financial workflow is the separate billing audit
- Sample size, selection method and extrapolation limits stated in the report rather than implied
- Fixed fee agreed before kickoff, never contingency
- Specialty-matched auditors; findings re-measured on a re-audit after provider education
A coding audit is a chart-level engagement: we re-code a stated sample of encounters from the documentation and compare that against what was billed. It is not the same thing as a billing audit, which reviews the financial workflow - payment variance against your contracted fee schedules, denial handling, A/R and collections. If what you want to know is where money is leaking across the revenue cycle, start there and come here when the finding lands on coding. Two things make this work defensible rather than decorative. First, the sampling is stated rather than implied. Every report says how many charts, how they were selected, and whether that sample supports extrapolating a dollar figure to everything you billed - at routine review volumes it usually does not, and a report that extrapolates from thirty charts is making a claim its sample cannot carry. Second, the compliance stakes are regulatory rather than rhetorical. Under 42 CFR 401.305, an identified Medicare or Medicaid overpayment must be reported and returned by the later of 60 days after identification or the date any corresponding cost report is due; the lookback period is six years; an overpayment retained past that deadline becomes an obligation for purposes of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729. The same regulation suspends the deadline once HHS-OIG acknowledges a submission to its Self-Disclosure Protocol, and requires that any overpayment calculated by statistical sampling be reported with its sampling and extrapolation methodology described - which is precisely why sample design is not a footnote. Verified against the current eCFR text on 17 September 2026. Audits are conducted by AAPC- and AHIMA-credentialed auditors matched to the specialty, with two-reviewer validation on disputed findings and a re-audit to test whether remediation worked.
Who This Service Is For
The State of Medical Coding Audit Services in 2026
The case for auditing does not need invented statistics, so this page does not use any. What is verifiable: HHS-OIG publishes a Work Plan of audits and evaluations that are underway or planned, says the work planning process is dynamic and adjusted through the year, and updates the list with newly initiated, updated and closed projects rather than annually (HHS-OIG Work Plan, verified 17 September 2026) - so a compliance programme scoped against last year's list is scoped against the wrong list. CMS's Comprehensive Error Rate Testing programme reported a fiscal year 2025 Medicare fee-for-service improper payment rate of 6.55%, or $28.83 billion, measured on claims submitted between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024 (CMS CERT, verified 17 September 2026); that measures payments that should not have been made as billed - it is not a denial rate and not a coding error rate, and all three get quoted interchangeably. And the overpayment rules are specific rather than atmospheric: 42 CFR 401.305 sets a 60-day return deadline running from identification, a six-year lookback, and makes retention past the deadline an obligation under the False Claims Act. What this page does not publish, because we could not retrieve a primary source for any of it: an industry coding error rate, a percentage of revenue that audits typically recover, an E/M distribution spread across practices, or recovery-contractor totals attributed to physician coding.
What Is Breaking Right Now
Suspected undercoding across one or more providers but no objective data on dollar impact
Recent RAC, payer, or carrier-specific audit notification requiring an internal baseline
New provider onboarding with no coding pattern history
EHR migration where charge capture templates need validation
Compliance program needing documented annual coding audit
M&A due diligence requiring coding integrity verification
Common Medical Coding Audit Services Mistakes to Avoid
Skipping audits because 'we have a compliance plan'
A compliance plan with no documented coding audits is paper-only. Regulators and payers look for evidence that the programme operates - audits performed, findings recorded, remediation carried out and re-tested - rather than evidence that it exists. Whether that record changes the outcome of an enforcement action is a fact-specific legal question; what is certain is that without it your counsel has nothing to argue from.
Document at least one annual coding audit per provider, with findings, remediation plan, and remediation evidence. Treat audits as an operational process, not a one-time checkbox.
Auditing only when there is suspected overcoding
Audits scoped to look only for overcoding find only overcoding. Undercoding is invisible to a one-directional review, so the practice's internal picture of its own coding quality is shaped by the question it asked rather than by its charts.
Audit in both directions and report undercoding and overcoded liability separately. Whether the net comes out positive depends entirely on your charts - a one-directional audit has pre-decided the answer.
Using your billing company to audit your billing company
Self-audit creates inherent conflict of interest. Findings tend to favor the auditor's own work. Defensibility under regulatory scrutiny is limited.
Use an independent third-party auditor at least once per year, even if your billing company offers internal audit as part of the service.
Audit findings sit in a folder with no remediation
Findings without remediation are worse than no audit: they create a record that the practice knew about an issue and did not act on it. That record is discoverable and it is the first thing a reviewer asks for when the same issue turns up later.
Every audit must produce a documented remediation plan with named owners and deadlines. Re-audit at 6 months to confirm remediation.
Hiring a contingency-fee audit firm
Contingency-fee firms profit only from undercoding findings, creating systematic bias toward upcoding recommendations. Their findings are less defensible under regulatory review and can create compliance risk rather than mitigating it.
Use fixed-fee auditors. Cost is predictable and findings are not financially incentivized in either direction.
What We Handle
Retrospective Coding Audit
A stated sample of previously submitted claims - commonly 30 to 50 charts per provider for a pattern-finding review - re-coded against the documentation, with line-item findings on undercoding, overcoding, modifier errors and bundling. A review that size finds patterns; it does not license extrapolating a dollar figure across everything you billed, and the report says so in those words.
Pre-Bill (Prospective) Coding Review
Charts reviewed before claim submission. Used during onboarding of new providers, EHR migrations, or after compliance findings. Catches errors before they become denials or repayment liabilities.
Focused-Target Audits
Targeted audits of specific risk areas — modifier 25, modifier 59, E/M level distribution, surgical global packages, time-based codes, behavioral health add-ons, telehealth billing, ancillary capture.
Provider-Level Performance Audit
Audit by provider, with E/M level distribution compared against that provider's own prior periods and against peers inside your group. We publish no external E/M distribution benchmark: the comparative data sets that would support one are licensed and not free to quote, so an external curve would be an invented citation.
HHS-OIG Work Plan Alignment
Audits scoped against the HHS-OIG Work Plan items that are open at the time of the audit. The Work Plan is updated continuously with newly initiated, updated and closed projects rather than published once a year, so the useful question is which items are active now for your specialty.
Findings Report with Provider Education
Plain-English findings report with chart-by-chart commentary, root-cause categorization, and a provider education plan. Optional 60-minute education session per audited provider.
Free Billing Audit · No obligation
Get a Free Coding Audit Scoping Call
Talk to one of our credentialed coding auditors about your objectives. We will recommend the audit type, the sample size, and whether that sample can support a dollar estimate - and tell you plainly if a billing audit, not a coding audit, is the engagement you actually need. No cost for the scoping call.
Prefer to talk? Book a 15-minute callRequest received
A billing specialist will review your practice details and reach out within 1 business day. No confirmation email is sent — if you need to reach us sooner, call +1-872-297-2815.
Our Medical Coding Audit Services Methodology
Independent Audit Discipline
Our auditors do not bill for the practices they audit. This separation eliminates the conflict of interest inherent in having your billing company audit its own work, and produces findings that withstand external scrutiny.
Specialty-Matched Auditor Assignment
Surgical coding requires surgical experience. Behavioral health requires behavioral health experience. We assign auditors with documented credentials and prior chart volume in your specialty rather than rotating generalists through specialty work.
Stated Sampling, Not Implied Sampling
For pattern-finding reviews we say in the report that the sample is a pattern-finding sample and does not carry extrapolation. Where a dollar figure has to be extrapolated - typically when an overpayment may be returned - the sample is drawn and documented as a statistical sample, because 42 CFR 401.305 requires the sampling and extrapolation methodology to be described in the report.
Two-Reviewer Validation on Disputed Findings
When a finding could materially change provider compensation or compliance posture, a second auditor independently reviews the chart without seeing the first opinion. We report the agreement rate between reviewers on every audit, so you can see how consistent the findings are rather than taking consistency on trust.
Education-First Reporting
A list of errors does not change provider behaviour. We translate findings into provider-specific patterns and education priorities with named owners and dates, so remediation actually happens instead of the report going into a binder.
Medical Coding Audit Services: MedPrecision vs Alternatives
| Feature | MedPrecision | In-House | Other Providers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auditor Independence | Audit team separate from billing operations — no conflict of interest | Self-audit by the same team that submitted the claims | Often the same team handles billing AND audit, creating bias |
| Auditor Credentials | AAPC CPC/CPMA or AHIMA CCS/RHIT — specialty-matched | Variable; often whoever has time | Varies by firm - worth asking explicitly about credentials and specialty match |
| Sample Methodology | OIG-aligned statistical sampling with documented methodology | Often non-statistical 'spot checks' | Variable methodology disclosure |
| Findings Format | Executive summary + per-provider detail + remediation plan | Spreadsheet of errors | Often just a spreadsheet |
| Pricing Model | Fixed-fee by scope — never contingency | Internal cost | Some operate on contingency, biasing toward overcoding findings |
| Re-Audit Discipline | Standard 6-month re-audit measures remediation effectiveness | Often no follow-up audit | Re-audit is often a separate engagement |
“The practices that get audited least by payers are the ones that audit themselves most. Voluntary audit discipline shows up in coding patterns, denial rates, and E/M distributions — and payers' algorithms notice.”
MedPrecision Coding Audit Team
Lead Coding Auditor
How the Transition Works
How we deliver medical coding audit services for your practice.
Audit Scoping
We define scope: providers, date range, code types (E/M, surgical, ancillary), audit type (retrospective or pre-bill) and sample size. Most reviews are 30 to 50 charts per provider - large enough to surface a pattern, small enough to deliver in two weeks. We state in the scope whether the sample is sized to find patterns or to support extrapolation, because those are different sample sizes and only the second can carry a dollar estimate for the whole population.
Chart Pull & Documentation Review
Charts and corresponding claims are reviewed against the provider's documentation. We code each chart independently, then compare against what was billed. Discrepancies are categorized by type and severity.
Findings Report & Recommendations
Written report with executive summary, per-provider findings, the dollar impact of the charts actually reviewed (undercoded recovery and overcoded liability, shown separately), root-cause analysis and prioritised recommendations. The figure is extrapolated to your full population only where the sample was drawn to support it, and the report says which case applies.
Provider Education & Re-Audit
Optional provider education sessions with the auditor, focused on the specific issues found. We recommend a re-audit at 6 months to confirm remediation.
What Reporting and Visibility Looks Like
Transparency is built into every engagement. You will always know where your revenue stands and what actions are being taken on your behalf.
Monthly KPI Dashboards
Track collection rates, denial trends, days in A/R, and payer-level performance with dashboards delivered on a fixed schedule.
Real-Time Claim Tracking
See claim status updates in real time so you never have to wonder where a payment stands or when follow-up is happening.
Quarterly Business Reviews
Detailed reviews with actionable recommendations covering denial root causes, payer trends, and revenue recovery opportunities.
Proactive Alerts
Automated alerts when key metrics shift, so issues are caught and addressed before they affect your bottom line.
Medical Coding Audit Services Key Terms
- Coding Audit
- Independent review of medical codes assigned to patient encounters against the supporting documentation, conducted by a credentialed auditor and producing findings, root-cause analysis, and remediation recommendations.
- Pre-Bill (Prospective) Audit
- Coding review conducted before claims are submitted. Used during provider onboarding, EHR migration, or post-finding remediation to prevent errors from reaching payers.
- Retrospective Audit
- Coding review of previously submitted claims. Identifies revenue recovery (undercoding), repayment liability (overcoding), and remediation priorities.
- RAC (Recovery Audit Contractor)
- CMS-contracted contractors that audit Medicare claims post-payment to identify overpayments. RAC findings can result in recoupment, interest, and referral for further investigation.
- OIG Work Plan
- HHS-OIG's published list of audits and evaluations underway or planned. OIG updates it continuously with newly initiated, updated and closed projects rather than once a year, so audit scoping should reference the items open at the time of the audit.
- Inter-Rater Reliability
- A measure of agreement between independent reviewers coding the same charts. We report the agreement rate measured on your audit; no free primary source publishes a target for it, so a firm quoting an industry standard for inter-rater agreement should be asked where it comes from.
Common Questions
Common questions about medical coding audit services.
Get a Free Billing Audit
See where denials, follow-up delays, or workflow gaps may be hurting your collections.
Get a Free Billing AuditWhat's the difference between a coding audit and a billing audit?
A billing audit reviews the money and the workflow around the codes - charge capture, payment variance against your contracted fee schedules, denial handling, A/R follow-up, payment posting and patient collections. A coding audit reviews the codes themselves against the documentation, chart by chart. They answer different questions and are quoted separately, and we deliberately do not sell one as though it covered the other: see medical billing audit services for the financial engagement. Many practices need both, usually in that order - the billing audit tells you whether coding is where your problem actually is.
How large a chart sample do you audit?
Routine pattern-finding reviews are commonly 30 to 50 charts per provider. That size tells you what is going wrong; it does not license a dollar estimate for everything you billed, and we say so in the report rather than quietly extrapolating. When the audit responds to a payer or regulatory notification, or when an overpayment may have to be quantified and returned, the sample has to be drawn and documented as a statistical sample - 42 CFR 401.305(d)(1) requires that an overpayment calculated by statistical sampling be reported with the sampling and extrapolation methodology described. Those are larger samples and a different engagement. We tell you which of the two you are buying before kickoff.
Will the audit find overcoding that creates repayment liability?
Yes, and that is the point of auditing in both directions. What follows is a legal question rather than a coding one, so here is the rule rather than a reassurance. Under 42 CFR 401.305 an identified overpayment must be reported and returned by the later of 60 days after identification or the date any corresponding cost report is due, the lookback period is six years, and an overpayment retained past the deadline becomes an obligation for purposes of the False Claims Act. The same regulation suspends that clock once HHS-OIG acknowledges a submission to its Self-Disclosure Protocol, or CMS acknowledges a submission to its Voluntary Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol. It does not itself set or waive any penalty multiplier, and we do not advise you on which route to take - that decision belongs to your compliance counsel on your facts. What an audit gives you is the quantified finding and the documented methodology counsel needs to act on it. Verified against the current eCFR text on 17 September 2026.
Are your auditors certified?
Yes. Our auditors hold AAPC CPC, CPMA, or AHIMA CCS / RHIT credentials. Specialty audits are assigned to auditors with documented experience in that specialty (e.g., orthopedic surgical coding, behavioral health, radiology).
Will the audit results be discoverable in litigation?
Possibly. Where litigation or regulatory exposure is a concern, an audit can be engaged through your outside counsel and performed at counsel's direction. Whether privilege attaches is a question for that lawyer and turns on the jurisdiction and how the engagement is papered; we will work to whatever structure your counsel specifies and will not characterise the protection ourselves. We are not a law firm and nothing here is legal advice.
How is an audit priced?
By scope, as a fixed fee agreed before kickoff: how many providers, how many charts each, which code families are in scope, and whether the sample has to support extrapolation. Fixing the fee first means the number does not move with what we find. We do not publish a price range on this page, because the spread between a single-provider focused review and a multi-provider audit responding to a regulatory notification is wide enough that a range would mislead more than it would help - ask and you get a number for your scope. We do not work on contingency: an auditor paid a share of recovered undercoding has a financial interest in finding it.
Related Services
Specialties We Serve
Related Resources
Available In
Get a Free Coding Audit Scoping Call
Talk to one of our credentialed coding auditors about your objectives. We will recommend the audit type, the sample size, and whether that sample can support a dollar estimate - and tell you plainly if a billing audit, not a coding audit, is the engagement you actually need. No cost for the scoping call.
- No contract
- No setup fees
- Reply within 1 business day